[torchthemummy]

The most important question that needs to be asked is what is the definition of "false". The article plays it as if it means "Bush and Co. knew that what they are saying is false." This is never stated in the article because it would leave the AP open to reasons why the same eveidence against Sadaam, pre November 1998 when the inspectors were "kicked out " (ie. pulled out) that the Democrats touted in the most strident manner as late as July 2003 (Bill Clinton) and then slowly but surely allowed to slide into amnesia about their previous declarations by the AP and their LMSM cohorts.

You will notice that this "report" will only get so much coverage due to the blowback factor. This article is all selective inuendo in regards to the accusation that Bush and affiliated officials knowingly told falsehoods vs. the truth that they acted on the best info they had at the time.

[Tut]

I believe they were using Michael Moore’s definition. Anything someone says that turns out not to be factually correct regardless of what a guy actually believes.